If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

This is mind boggling. Every move a team makes is a risk. From the Murphleavy trade to Hibbert, it's all a risk. The more risk you take doesn't equate to a championship and to try and quantify risk level is beyond stupid.

Of course you can quantify risk. Trading your best player for a draft pick is clearly a bigger risk than trading your 6th best player for the same pick.

Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

What's the difference between a bad decision and a risk that ends badly?

A risk that ends badly has as much or more upside than the downside. For instance trading an all star Dale Davis for a young Jermaine Oneal. We gave up an all star for a guy who won often injured in his early career, was averaging something like 5/5 in 10 minutes a game, and was a malcontent who demanded he be traded. If he remained the player who couldn't get off the bench in Portland or if his knees kept bothering him (although that came back eventually sadly) it would have been a risk that ended badly. Instead we gave up an all star and got an MVP candidate.

Letting Collison go for nothing has no upside, it isn't a risk. Giving up Kawhi for Hill was a risk, I agree there, but resigning your own players isn't a risk... they are your players.

Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

What's the difference between a bad decision and a risk that ends badly?

Signing a player that was drafted five years ago and has not done anything since been drafted to a long term deal is a bad decision, trading a good backup PG with value for a career backup center and giving that player a long term deal is a bad decision.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:

Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

A risk that ends badly has as much or more upside than the downside. For instance trading an all star Dale Davis for a young Jermaine Oneal. We gave up an all star for a guy who won often injured in his early career, was averaging something like 5/5 in 10 minutes a game, and was a malcontent who demanded he be traded. If he remained the player who couldn't get off the bench in Portland or if his knees kept bothering him (although that came back eventually sadly) it would have been a risk that ended badly. Instead we gave up an all star and got an MVP candidate.

Letting Collison go for nothing has no upside, it isn't a risk. Giving up Kawhi for Hill was a risk, I agree there, but resigning your own players isn't a risk... they are your players.

So then you agree, when the right risk come along we take it. Trading AD was a risk. Trading JO for picks and TJ was also a risk. I'm not sure what you are trying to debate.

The Following User Says Thank You to billbradley For This Useful Post:

Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

Signing a player that was drafted five years ago and has not done anything since been drafted to a long term deal is a bad decision, trading a good backup PG with value for a career backup center and giving that player a long term deal is a bad decision.

Are you saying risks aren't bad decisions? There is no way signing Green and Ian aren't risks. You're betting they become better players, that's why you sign them.

Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

Signing a player that was drafted five years ago and has not done anything since been drafted to a long term deal is a bad decision, trading a good backup PG with value for a career backup center and giving that player a long term deal is a bad decision.

Unless the career backup center comes in and does a fine job of protecting the rim when the starter is sitting out, making sure that our defense doesn't lag. Sure, there were times a guy like Amundson provides more than Ian has done this year. But when Lou was in there, there was nobody out there altering shots when he can't get to the block. Ian makes sure that when they get past the first line of defense they still have a big guy to try to shoot around.

If you look at the moves we made individually I think you are right vnzla. Collison + Jones for Mahinmi doesn't make very much sense because we had the capspace to sign Mahinmi outright. But when you look at all of the moves together it makes sense. They wanted Jones out so they could give basically the same contract to Green. They wanted Ian, but Dallas didn't particularly want Jones. But they did want Collison, so Dallas agreed to take Jones if they got Collison as well. The loss of Collison might hurt this year until we let him leave this offseason, but they knew they would be able to acquire Augustin.

You can disagree that Ian and Green weren't the best offseason targets, but they are the right age for our team. And Green as a third wing doesn't seem so bad if you always have one of George or Granger out there.

Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

Are you saying risks aren't bad decisions? There is no way signing Green and Ian aren't risks. You're betting they become better players, that's why you sign them.

I want to thank this a million times.

Those who are saying the Pacers need to take more risks don't want them to take more risks; they want them to sign the players they think are better. It's a risk up until the point where it doesn't seem to be working. At that point, it is a bad decision. Which is what all of the Pacers moves have been deemed to be.

Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

Of course this was a risk. It's not like it was a forgone conclusion they were all going to sign with the Heat.

Given the fact that now we know that both LeBron and Bosh were in contact and decided to sign together with the Heat when they were still in Cleveland and Toronto, I say that it was pretty much was a forgone conclusion that they were going to sign there. At least for the players involved.

So they didn't take a risk on bringing in Tyson fresh off injury or the nearly mummified Jason Kidd in hopes he could still hoop at 90 years old? Wrong again. I remember LOTS of people saying Jason didn't have any game yet and that Tyson was overpaid.

Jason Kidd went there at 2007-2008 season. What are you talking about?

No, it really wasn't. They gave 4 picks to the Suns to get Nash. They gave Andrew Bynum (who has yet to play a game in a non-Laker uniform), Josh McRoberts and Christian Eyenga to get Dwight Howard, Chris Duhon and Earl Clark. I mean, wow.

They certainly risked and parted with so many great assets to get 2 possible HOFers /green

I don't know how people can think that any team other than the Lakers would be able to do those deals.

And now you're talking. The Celtics have a loyal fan base. They knew that they could risk beig bad and still have fans attending their games. Not all teams are lucky like that. Not all teams are supported in their own city..

Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

Given the fact that now we know that both LeBron and Bosh were in contact and decided to sign together with the Heat when they were still in Cleveland and Toronto, I say that it was pretty much was a forgone conclusion that they were going to sign there. At least for the players involved.

I guess someone should have told New York, New Jersey, Chicago, and Houston that. If this isn't captain hindsight I don't know what is. We had THE DECISION hour long special, but it was 100% for sure always going to happen.

Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

Ha, so you're telling me because more people knew that these players weren't good, it was less of a risk for the Pacers to sign these players to get better?

I don't agree with your player evaluation, but your argument makes zero since. In your opinion, the players signed were riskier moves because "everyone and their mom" knew they weren't good players.

I remember people and their mothers saying the same thing about the Gasol trade, you can't have it both ways.

Risk has to have upside. There is no upside to bringing in Ian. No one has ever seen him play and said, "you know, I really think that kid is going to be an amazing player one day..." I can get behind someone possibly saying that about Green, so I'll give you that one, but Ian? C'mon.

Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

Risk has to have upside. There is no upside to bringing in Ian. No one has ever seen him play and said, "you know, I really think that kid is going to be an amazing player one day..." I can get behind someone possibly saying that about Green, so I'll give you that one, but Ian? C'mon.

Why does upside have to be that the player will be "amazing"? Upside just has to be that the player will be better for you than what you gave up to get him. Otherweise, you are saying the only "risk" is when you trade for a star - benches are by that definition never risky, just ... what? Known in advance to be a good or bad decision, and front offices stubbornly make bad decisions anyway?

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BillS For This Useful Post:

Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

Risk has to have upside. There is no upside to bringing in Ian. No one has ever seen him play and said, "you know, I really think that kid is going to be an amazing player one day..." I can get behind someone possibly saying that about Green, so I'll give you that one, but Ian? C'mon.

The upside is having a solid backup center. How many teams can say they have two competent 5s?

Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

Risk has to have upside. There is no upside to bringing in Ian. No one has ever seen him play and said, "you know, I really think that kid is going to be an amazing player one day..." I can get behind someone possibly saying that about Green, so I'll give you that one, but Ian? C'mon.

That's an opinion, not fact. He did have upside. The upside was that he would improve our defense in the second unit and give us a reliable PnR partner for our backup PG. And...he has done that so far. He has his flaws, but he has a lot of positives. Just because you don't agree his positives aren't positive enough doesn't mean they don't exist.